Navigate:

Text Size

-

+

reset

Sullivan — a former Time colleague who’s very pleasant in person — didn’t mention that the bulk of the story was about Axelrod describing Obama’s prudence. And if traffic were the driver, wouldn’t we have ginned up a more provocative headline than “Obama consulted widely on memos”?

Salon’s Glenn Greenwald piled on with a tweet — and then a blog post — linking to Sullivan: “POLITICO is to journalism as Jay Bybee is to the legal profession.”

Greenwald was very decent when we were on a panel together, so there’s a certain World Wrestling Entertainment element to these blog slams: It’s just business — everyone needs content.

Greg Sargent, a fair-minded former reporter for Talking Points Memo who now runs the “Plum Line” blog at WhoRunsGov.com, sent me an early morning “Want to respond to critics?” e-mail.

I wrote back: “Thank you for checking. Sometimes ya have to read beyond a blog snippet. When people read our actual article, they'll see that the headline and top two-thirds are an exclusive on David Axelrod's behind-the-scenes description of the president's decision-making process, followed by a shorter Bush view from a very high-level official whose opinion was available only on background — not ideal, but better than making readers wonder what the official Bush view is.”

Of course I would have preferred to have the official on the record, just as we would appreciate on-the-record comments from the Obama officials who demand anonymity every day. But we use their comments for the same reason: They reflect a viewpoint worth reporting, even if it would be more powerful with their names attached.

I have asked the top Bush administration official — and others — to go on the record on the CIA memos and will post their comments when they do.

And I’ll try to think of a headline that’s bland enough that Sullivan won’t accuse us of going for “buzz and traffic.”

Um, I'm not a part of the "liberal blogosphere" and I wrote you yesterday to complain about using anonymous sources unnecessarily. There is no excuse for allowing people to make unsubstantiated accusations without attribution in your piece.

I figured that readers could decide whether the former Bush official’s comments sounded defensive or vindictive.

The fact that you even thought this before publishing is even more of a reason why you should have attributed the comments. If you were questioning Mr. Hayden's comments (and that's who I believe this was), then you should have either published on attribution or left out of the story. Or, picked up the phone and got comment on the record from someone else.

Here's an idea: How about a "Story Behind the Story" that actually deals with the journalistic issues at hand: ATTRIBUTION. Instead of spending all your time attacking bloggers and writers who critiqued you, why don't you give us the policy of Politico for deciding to give anonymity?

Or would that require to much journalism for you in one day? I know it's hard work at POLITICO going on right-wing radio shows and typing up Republican emails.

1. This is an example of how reporters screw up stories. Allen added a Bush admin person's comments to a background story when he should have written a sidebar about Bush admin responses. If he couldn't get Bush guys to respond, he should have dropped it. Let readers comment and make the points the Bush folks would have, as we're seeing in Arena. 2. Never talk to a reporter who will decide which of your comments are politically ok and which aren't. You're talking to a dishonest info broker. 3. Andrew Sullivan is wrong as usual. The guys who were interrogated were enemy combatants, not uniformed soldiers covered by the Geneva Convention. 4. The correct perspective, which Allen wouldn't use, is that this is another move by Obama to bash Bush. Why is the president so insecure about Bush? And why base a story on what David Axlerod spins? He's a Chicago pol. 5. If you want to make an anonymous post, use the comments section, which is not edited by biased reporters. 6. Obama has shown his anti-American colors. His disloyalty to the troops has been long known to many and now is obvious to most. I hope it comes back to haunt him and his Dem supporters. That he is weak and can be rolled by Congress and our enemies was obvious last year and will be a problem as long as he's in office. We can only hope that having him as president won't lead to more attacks on America and more wars, but it probably will.

Um, I'm not a part of the "liberal blogosphere" and I wrote you yesterday to complain about using anonymous sources unnecessarily. There is no excuse for allowing people to make unsubstantiated accusations without attribution in your piece.

I figured that readers could decide whether the former Bush official’s comments sounded defensive or vindictive.

The fact that you even thought this before publishing is even more of a reason why you should have attributed the comments. If you were questioning Mr. Hayden's comments (and that's who I believe this was), then you should have either published on attribution or left out of the story. Or, picked up the phone and got comment on the record from someone else.

Pathetic.

TWP:

You are pathetic, twirp. That's who you are, isn't it? TWP must stand for twirp, right? Or are you making unsubstantiated accusations without attribution? Let's see..TWP could stand for "Top White House Punk" or "Time Warner Pundit" or "Taken With President." Any number of possibilities here...

Why don't you stop trying to tell journalists how to do their job? Frankly, most of America is sick of the lack of honesty we have seen in the current administration. We are also fed up with the Obama-induced drivel that has been coming out of the press for the last year.

Mike protected his source, something the best journalists have always done. I applaud him for presenting both sides of the story, something your kind has long since abandoned and replaced with the "Obama Praise Press." God forbid anyone should attack your precious president!

Thanks, Mike. Keep up the good work, and stay honest. There are few honest journalists left.

"I tacked on an ellipd excerpt of the former Bush official’s quotes, removing several ad hominem attacks on Obama. I quoted less than half of the comment and took out the most incendiary parts"

Now, why would you do that? If the former Bush official threw in some ad hominem attacks that were incendiary, shouldn't we, the reader, get that too so we can make a judgement about the source? So you "cleaned" up the comments to make them more... palatable? politically correct? Is that your job as a reporter? It's bad enough that the comments are anonymous but now you are going to edit them to your liking? Fascinating insight into what Politico considers journalism.

Well done on all counts, Mike. What's the matter with the Left? Didn't they go on and on for years about dissent being patriotic? But now, when a Bush official speaks out against the Administration they want to shout it down? Truly a scary bunch.